Re: Title: A Structural Analysis of the Standard Halting Problem Proof

On 7/20/2025 8:05 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

[ Followup-To: set ]
 In comp.theory Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 07:13:43 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:

 

On 7/20/25 12:58 AM, olcott wrote:

Title: A Structural Analysis of the Standard Halting Problem Proof

 

Author: PL Olcott

 

Abstract:
This paper presents a formal critique of the standard proof of the
undecidability of the Halting Problem. While we do not dispute the
conclusion that the Halting Problem is undecidable, we argue that the
conventional proof fails to establish this conclusion due to a
fundamental misapplication of Turing machine semantics. Specifically,
we show that the contradiction used in the proof arises from conflating
the behavior of encoded simulations with direct execution, and from
making assumptions about a decider's domain that do not hold under a
rigorous model of computation.

  

Your problem is you don't understand the meaning of the words you are
using.

 

This is an ad hominem attack, not argumentation.

 Maybe it was you wanting to create that impression by dishonestly
snipping the substance of Richard's post, where he illustrated some of
the words whose meaning PO fails to understand.
 You seem far too ready to shout "AD HOMINEM!" whenever a post contains
personal criticism.  It's a cheap tool, and you use it dishonestly, as
you did in your last post.
 It is a generally acknowledged fact that PO's understanding of the
topic dominating this newsgroup is far from good.

Four different Chatbots have given my work an
actual honest review. None of them deny any
verified facts after these facts have been
verified. Two of these Chatbots now agree that
the conventional HP proofs are flawed and this
is the flaw:
*Fatal error of the proofs*
<ChatGPT>
Misrepresentation of Input:
The standard proof assumes a decider
H(M,x) that determines whether machine
M halts on input x.
But this formulation is flawed, because:
Turing machines can only process finite
encodings (e.g. ⟨M⟩), not executable entities
like M.
So the valid formulation must be
H(⟨M⟩,x), where ⟨M⟩ is a string.
</ChatGPT>
The above cannot be correctly refuted.
Computer scientists tend to take textbooks
as the infallible word of God. Philosophers
of computer science don't do that.

 Part of that is his
failure to understand the meaning of the technical words he uses.  To
write this from time to time is entirely legitimate.
 

The above abstract was ChatGPT's paraphrase of my words.
Author: [Your Name] so I put my name.
The discourse that I had with ChatGPT caused the
clarification of my work.
I am only proving that the conventional proof does not
correctly derive its undecidability result. It may be
the case that some other proof does correctly derive this
undecidability result.
Both ChatGPT after a very long discourse and Claude.ai
agree that I found a *Fatal error of the proofs*
shown above.

/Flibble

 

--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer